The 44th President's 2002 Speech On Waging War, With Syria Update

President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the White House briefing room in Washington, Monday, Aug. 20, 2012. Image Credit: AP via Washington Wire

The 44th President's 2002 Speech On Waging War, With Syria Update

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care. 

This version has been UPDATED with strike throughs / updated inserts to reflect our current historical perspective now nearly eleven (11) years later.
 
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz / Samantha Power and Susan Rice and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove / David Axelrod to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein / Bashar Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam / Bashar poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
(ht: npr.org)
ENDS

Welcome to the world firmly rooted in the policies initiated during the 39th Presidency with the added element of gross hypocrisy and child-king megalomaniac-like assertions.

EXAMPLE:

Yesterday, The 44th President, Barack Obama, said the following during a press conference held while he visited with Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt.

This excerpted and edited from the New York Times - 

Obama Says ‘World Set a Red Line’ on Chemical Arms
By PETER BAKER - September 4, 2013 

“I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference here in Stockholm. “The world set a red line.”

He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”
[Reference Here]

But this does not comport with the facts of statements The 44th President made a little over one year ago when he said:

This excerpted and edited from The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire -

Flashback: ‘Red Line’ in Syria — What Obama Said in 2012 Remarks
Washington Wire - September 4, 2013

Q (Chuck Todd, NBC News) Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?

I also want to follow up on an answer you just gave to Nancy.  You said that one of the reasons you wanted to see Mitt Romney‘s tax returns was you want to see if everybody is playing by the same set of rules.  That actually goes to the question she asked, which is this implication, do you think there’s something Mitt Romney is not telling us in his tax returns that indicates he’s not playing by the same set of rules?

THE PRESIDENT:  No.  There’s a difference between playing by the same sets of rules and doing something illegal.  And in no way have we suggested the latter.  But the first disclosure, the one year of tax returns that he disclosed indicated that he used Swiss bank accounts, for example.  Well, that may be perfectly legal, but I suspect if you ask the average American, do you have one and is that part of how you manage your tax obligations, they would say no.  They would find that relevant information, particularly when we’re going into a time where we know we’re going to have to make tough choices both about spending and about taxes.

So I think the idea that this is somehow exceptional, that there should be a rationale or a justification for doing more than the very bare minimum has it backwards.  I mean, the assumption should be you do what previous presidential candidates did, dating back for decades.  And Governor Romney’s own dad says, well, the reason I put out 10 or 12 years is because any single year might not tell you the whole story.  And everybody has, I think, followed that custom ever since.

The American people have assumed that if you want to be President of the United States, that your life is an open book   when it comes to things like your finances.  I’m not asking him to disclose every detail of his medical records — although we normally do that as well — (laughter.)  You know?  I mean, this isn’t sort of overly personal here, guys.  This is pretty standard stuff.  I don’t think we’re being mean by asking him to do what every other presidential candidate has done — right?  It’s what the American people expect.

On Syria, obviously this is a very tough issue.  I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down.  So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people.  The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition.  But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.

What we’ve said is, number one, we want to make sure we’re providing humanitarian assistance, and we’ve done that to the tune of $82 million, I believe, so far.  And we’ll probably end up doing a little more because we want to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are fleeing the mayhem, that they don’t end up creating — or being in a terrible situation, or also destabilizing some of Syria’s neighbors.

The second thing we’ve done is we said that we would provide, in consultation with the international community, some assistance to the opposition in thinking about how would a political transition take place, and what are the principles that should be upheld in terms of looking out for minority rights and human rights.  And that consultation is taking place.

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation.  But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.

Q  (Todd)  So you’re confident it’s somehow under — it’s safe?

THE PRESIDENT:  In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident.  What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully.  We have put together a range of contingency plans.  We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.  That would change my calculations significantly.

All right, thank you, everybody.
[Reference Here]

No statements were ever made linking action toward Syria and decades old accords that sit at the United Nations and no United States Congressional leader or World leader, other than this 44th President, ever evoked the term of RED LINE as it relates to actions concerning Syrian unrest.

Welcome to Carter's Second Term ... but it is way more dangerous and corrupt than we expected. Oh, and the damage to the economy due to Government spending and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act/ObamaCare has yet to get underway in earnest.

The Obama Administration, The Democrat Political Party, And The UN Will Cancel The 2nd Amendment - UPDATED

 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may prefer “No Labels” but in his case, many feel “gun grabber” is a pretty fitting one. As part of his misguided crusade to tighten up gun laws nationally, The New York Times reports that Hizzoner sent undercover cops to gun shows in Arizona and found they were violating the law (ctrl-click HERE to launch video alert by Dick Morris). Image Credit: weaselzippers.us

The Obama Administration, The Democrat Political Party, And The UN Will Cancel The 2nd Amendment

Do the words LAME Duck mean anything to you? What does international treaty and its application to the laws of a sovereign country mean to the people of said sovereign country?

Well, the answers to these two questions and the effect on our freedoms here in the United States may have real and serious consequences to our way of life as the Obama Administration, the Democrat political party, and the United Nations seek to curb access to ones self-protection and self-determination here in the United States through a treaty.

Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI database, but they must cancel a sale if they have reason to believe the buyer would fail such a review. Image Credit: nashvillescene.com



This excerpted and edited from ConsortiumNews -

Seeking Rules for the World’s Guns
By Paul R. Pillar / x-CIA analyst - July 9, 2012

A conference opened last week under the auspices of the United Nations to draft a multilateral treaty aimed at controlling the international trade in conventional arms. Such a treaty potentially could do significant good, although many legitimate questions remain concerning its terms and feasibility.

Neither the good nor the bad is likely to be clarified in public discussion about the treaty within the nation that is the world’s biggest arms exporter and thus the most important player in this process: the United States. We are more likely to hear the sort of ill-informed debate that too often has characterized treatment of multilateral conventions, as we have seen most recently with the law of the sea treaty.

The background of the prospective arms-trade treaty being discussed in New York should make politicization of the issue in the United States unsurprising. A resolution of the U.N. General Assembly intended to advance the subject in 2006 passed with 153 states in favor, twenty-four abstentions and a vote against by the United States. Three years later, the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty.
----
What debate has already taken place in the United States on the prospective treaty has featured some of the same infringement-of-sovereignty notions that were heard in opposing ratification of the law of the sea convention. In the case of the prospective arms-trade treaty, the National Rifle Association has been out in front with warnings about how the treaty supposedly would circumvent the Second Amendment.
----
Some of the legitimate reasons to raise doubts about an arms-trade treaty concern its effectiveness — and its effect on the arms balances in local conflicts — given the extent of gray-market arms dealing outside the control of governments that would be parties to the treaty.

Other legitimate concerns involve the inevitable differences of view in trying to develop criteria for proscribing or limiting arms transfers and in applying any such criteria consistently in different areas of conflict. One man’s contribution to local security is another man’s stoking of regional instability.

Informed debate about these and other legitimate concerns is likely to be less prominent than ill-informed statements about such things as taking away the people’s right to bear arms. The fact that the conference in New York is scheduled to conclude its work near the end of this month — amid a U.S. presidential election campaign — will make the subject ripe for the crasser forms of politicization.

On U.S. insistence, the rules of the conference provide that unanimity is required for a draft treaty to emerge directly from it.
----
That will repeat the experiences of the law of the sea convention and the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, with all the uncertainties of the United States not being a party to a major element of otherwise widely accepted international law. If that happens, among those likely to be disappointed will be American arms exporters, who look favorably on an arms-trade treaty as a way of standardizing the many different national rules with which they now have to deal.
[Reference Here]

What this means, even though this former CIA analyst feels that the United States will not sign on to any treaty placed in front of it by the United Nations, is that world powers are desperate to find a way to control the freedom of access to firearms through "standardizing the many different national rules" worldwide regardless of their intent.

Again, "the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty" and we all know what that means to the average American citizen, the United States Constitution, and the desire by the progressive political class to apply CONTROL over the majority who believe that rights outlined by the 2nd Amendment are valid and unalterable.

Remember what happened with transparency during the healthcare debate in this country? Remember how most American citizens felt about the Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills and the results to our opposition to the expansion of government spending (an additional 6 Trillion dollars of debt and NO BUDGET in only 3.5 years)?

One of the main protections and rights outlined in the United States Constitution is about to be sold down the river in a "bow" to the world through a treaty put together by political progressives in the United Nation.

Here, during Carter's Second Term, to be clear - The Obama Administration, the Democrat political party, and the United Nations are teeing up to essentially cancel our 2nd amendment rights through the signing of an international treaty during the Lame Duck session (after the November 2012 election) of Congress.

UPDATE:

Farewell to the arms treaty – for now

Kenneth Epps – The Globe and Mail – Published Wednesday, Aug. 01 2012, 2:00 AM EDT
Lost in the hoopla of the opening ceremony of the Olympics, a vital international marathon of another kind ended Friday with a race suspension just before the finish line. At the United Nations in New York, a month of intensive multilateral negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to regulate international transfers of conventional weapons concluded without agreement, largely because the United States called for more time on the final day.

The U.S. announcement was a surprise. Just a few hours earlier, many participants were anticipating a positive outcome after Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina, who presided over the conference, introduced a revised text that gained widespread support.

For Control Arms, the international coalition of NGOs that has campaigned for a treaty for more than a decade, Mr. Moritan’s text was not perfect. 

The real reasons the United States pulled the plug are known only within the Obama administration, but many conference delegates suggested the impending U.S. presidential election was a factor.
—-
The ATT has been cynically portrayed by the National Rifle Association as a UN instrument to attack U.S. Second Amendment rights. That the U.S. gun lobby has deliberately misrepresented the treaty for its own ends is not in question. The question is whether the NRA message is believed by U.S. voters, and the assessment of the administration appears to be yes.
—-
[This is troubling] Fortunately, the ATT process did not end on Friday. The United States has called for the negotiating conference to reconvene in 2013, again operating on a consensus basis. Other countries may not wait that long nor be willing to negotiate under a consensus constraint.
[Reference Here]

----

** Article first published as Obama Administration, Democratic Party, and UN Will Cancel the 2nd Amendment on Technorati **

Obama’s Ideology of Decline

ABC's Diane Sawyer asked the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, whether Obama would sometimes "sit and confront your own doubts." Obama answered haltingly. "You know, I -- I would say that when I -- the one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Image Credit: Jim Treacher - The DC Trawler

Obama’s Ideology of Decline

Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama, the man elected to be the 44th President of the United States, is an ideologue.

Many argue that with his statements on Hope and Change centered on the redistribution of America's wealth, along with his documented understanding and teachings of radical political operatives like Saul Alinsky, Cloward/Piven, and Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste", that Barack Obama is a Communist ideologue. The truth is actually more troubling than even this assumption.

Political commentator Charles Krauthammer joined Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio for an interview and what Charles is able to articulate about the policies that the Obama Administration have pursued during its first full year in office points out that Barack Obama is an ideologue, alright ... he has embraced an ideology of decline.

This excerpted and edited from David Horowitz's Newsreal -

Charles Krauthammer Nails Down Ideologue Obama Perfectly
by Michael van der Galien, NewsReal Blog - 2010 February 2

Appearing on Frank Gaffney’s show on Secure Freedom Radio earlier today, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer delivered the ultimate smackdown of President Barack Obama.

The conservative columnist proved he understands Obama completely. As I argued yesterday, conservatives are making a tragic mistake by mistaking the man for a pragmatist. He is not, he’s a leftist ideologue.

Krauthammer understands that perfectly. He reminded Gaffney that Obama truly reveled in the praise of the world’s most feared dictators and the standing ovation they gave him when he spoke to them at the United Nations, where he apologized for every single thing America had ever done.
----
Another good point Krauthammer made about Obama’s political views, is that he’s an adherent of “declinism,” as all progressives are. This ideology of decline says that the U.S. has peaked and that things can only go down hill from here. China will – somehow logically – become the world’s next superpower, while the U.S. will lose most of the power and influence it has today.
----
Lastly, this president has an unquestionable faith in the United Nations. The UN, Obama believes, can solve every major crisis in the world. Again facts don’t matter. History has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the UN may be a nice debating club, you’re mistaken to believe that it can get anything done. Whenever a serious crisis occurs, “the international community” bails out at the last moment and America – together with some loyal allies – is forced to clean up the mess. This is how it has been ever since the UN was founded. Obama’s refusal to accept this rather obvious truth, is yet more proof that he’s nothing more or less than a leftist ideologue.

I’m happy to see that Krauthammer understands what kind of politician Obama is and what this means for his domestic and for his foreign policy. The more people nail this ideologue down, the better. After all, you can’t fight an opponent you don’t understand.
Reference Here>>

Obama's "Sign Of Progess" hand salute. Image Credit: Moonbattery

And this excerpted and edited from Jonah Goldberg -

Obama Appears Blinded by His Own Ideological Biases
The president isn’t a pragmatist, no matter how often he claims to be one
Jonah Goldberg, NationalReviewOnline - February 3, 2010 12:00 A.M.

‘I am not an ideologue,” President Obama insisted at his truly refreshing confab with the Republican caucus in Baltimore last Friday. When he heard some incredulous murmurs and chuckles from the audience in response to the idea that the most sincerely ideological president in a generation is no ideologue, he added a somewhat plaintive, “I’m not.”
----
It’s clear from interviews that he is fond of the notion that he is above ideological squabbles and is a clear-eyed appraiser of facts and adjudicator of political disagreements. He’s described himself as a “pragmatist,” even a “ruthless pragmatist,” countless times.
----
Obama routinely insinuates that all of the facts are on his side. He invokes a confabulated consensus of experts to suggest that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to disagree with his agenda. After all, with the eggheads and “facts” in his corner, only the other side’s ideological blinders — or stupidity — could account for any dissent.
----
Ideologies don’t require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very question of deciding what to be pragmatic about — this but not that — requires applying an ideological test.
----
A truly “ruthless” pragmatist might opt for summarily executing enemy combatants after torturing them with hot pokers. He might abandon anyone who can’t afford health insurance. He might ban abortion on the grounds that Social Security needs more young people or eliminate college football entirely as a needless distraction and a drain on resources.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then “ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth.” Russell’s point was that there’s nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.

Our values, customs, traditions, and principles provide insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it’s often called an ideology, and there’s no reason to apologize for having one.
Reference Here>>

Get hip to Obama’s ideology of decline as we struggle to survive life here in Carter's Second Term. After all, as stated before in this posting, one can’t fight an opponent one doesn’t understand.

The Obama Administration, The EPA, & Free Speech

U.S. EPA attorneys Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams produce a YouTube video (The Huge Mistake Climate Change 2009) and are asked to take it down by the EPA and the Obama Administration [ctrl-click to launch video]. Video Credit: Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams via oversightandreform

The Obama Administration, The EPA, & Free Speech

The short answer ... It is not happening.

This probably isn't surprising to many who are critics of the current leadership of our country, that the Government is actively working against the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights in order to insure that their approach to governance carries the day, but this last week saw the passing of a troubling example of this kind of action and attitude.

A couple of lawyers who work for the Environmental Protection Agency, who are all for the protection and care of the environment and green agenda of the United States, posted a YouTube video voicing their objection to the effort at fashioning legislation that would measure CO2 emission outputs of business activity and set limits on the level of emissions an effort can produce.

This legislation is commonly called "Cap & Trade" where the Government is able to assess penalties on the CO2 emissions produced above the authorized level and thereby make the business effort more expensive to the end products the effort creates which is then reflected in the price to the consumer. This legislation amounts to a backdoor TAX to the purchasing public on all products the Government deems worthy of scrutiny in their CO2 creating activities.

These two lawyers do not believe that this approach of Cap & Trade is not good and a "huge mistake". They argue that the legislation, while making the offense of producing CO2 costly, allows offenders to continue to create emissions without actually reducing or improving the activity that creates the CO2 gas in the first place and makes the activity more costly but OK!

This excerpted and edited from the Washington Post -

EPA tells workers to tone down YouTube clip about climate bill
By David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post Staff Writer - Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Two Environmental Protection Agency lawyers who made a YouTube video calling current climate legislation a "huge mistake" were told by the agency to remove the clip and edit out some references to their employer, one of them said.

Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams, a husband and wife who have worked in the EPA's San Francisco office for more than 20 years, have been outspoken in their opposition to a "cap and trade" system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

That system -- in which companies may buy and sell the right to pollute -- is at the heart of a climate bill passed by the House this summer, and another under consideration in the Senate.

On Oct. 31, the two made their case in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, saying the bill was fatally flawed by the inclusion of unreliable "carbon offsets," and would "lock in climate degradation" instead of solving it.

A few days later, Williams said, they were approached by EPA ethics officials. She said the officials demanded they take down a YouTube video they had posted in September that made many of the same points.

In the video, Zabel says none of their statements should be construed as an official position of the EPA or the Obama administration. But Williams said the EPA wanted them to further play down their federal connections. The officials said they could repost the video, she said, if they removed a mention of the length of their experience at EPA.

Another comment, in which Zabel said he oversees a cap-and-trade system for smog-causing pollutants in California, also had to go, she said. In addition, the agency said they had to take out a photo of the EPA's San Francisco office building.

The EPA cited a federal regulation that says government employees may note their official position when making statements on their own time -- as long as their title is "given no more prominence than other significant biographical details."

Williams said the pair have taken down their video, although it was reposted by an environmental group.
Reference Here>>

China's president, Hu Jintao, meets US President Barack Obama tomorrow. Obama has said that a treaty is unlikely to be ratified at Copenhagen. Delaying a treaty for long enough for the US to sign up might mean that China would be willing to sign up. Image Credit: Kevin Lamarque

Addendum:

This consternation voiced by a couple of committed left bureaucrat lawyers from the EPA may be the reason why President Barack Obama is signaling that the meeting of world leaders on an over-reaching Global Warming agreement next month in Copenhagen ... may be put off.

There is a division in the ranks on the left that Cap & Trade does not go far enough, while on the right, having the President sign away our country's sovereignty in a world governance agreement may not be in the best interest of our nation ... ever!

This excerpted and edited from The Guardian -

Copenhagen climate talks: No deal, we're out of time, Obama warns
Gordon Brown still hopes to salvage climate talks as US rules out binding targets
David Adam, Jonathan Watts and Patrick Wintour - guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 November 2009 21.36 GMT

Barack Obama acknowledged today that time had run out to secure a legally binding climate deal at the Copenhagen summit in December and threw his support behind plans to delay a formal pact until next year at the earliest.

During a hastily convened meeting in Singapore, the US president supported a Danish plan to salvage something from next month's meeting by aiming to make it a first-stage series of commitments rather than an all-encompassing protocol.

Postponing many contentious decisions on emissions targets, financing and technology transfer until the second-stage, leaders will instead try to reach a political agreement in Copenhagen that sends a strong message of intent.

While this falls short of hopes that the meeting would lock in place a global action plan to replace the Kyoto protocol, it recognises the lack of progress in recent preparatory talks and the hold-ups of climate legislation in the US Senate.
---
Britain's climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, tried to put a brave face on Obama's move, insisting it is still possible to reach a broad political agreement on carbon emissions targets, but senior Labour MPs admitted they feared the necessary momentum for a detailed agreement would be sucked from the Copenhagen event if politicians know a deal has been postponed to the next scheduled meeting in Mexico City next year.
----
There will now be intense discussions on whether the political agreement at Copenhagen contains any detailed meaningful commitments.
----
Obama spoke in support of the proposal, cautioning the group not to let the "perfect be the enemy of the good".

The proposal by Denmark would buy time for the US Senate to pass carbon-capping legislation, allowing the Obama administration to bring a 2020 target and financing pledges to the table at a UN climate meeting in mid-2010.

But there are many other divisions between developed and developing nations that could prolong talks. It was unclear if China, the world's biggest emitter, and other developing countries supported the two-stage plan.
----
According to the UK government's former chief scientist Sir David King, these talks are the best chance for the world to agree a new deal. "Once Hu Jintao and Obama agree, I think the rest of the world could fall into place," he told the Guardian. "It's a head of state issue. Obama, through an agreement with Hu Jintao, could be able to deal with some of the concerns of the American population."
----
"Copenhagen has come a year too early. There was no way Obama could get this together for December this year," said King. Chinese negotiators have been saying much the same thing in private.
Reference Here>>